Sri B.C. Lokanathaswamy vs The Deputy Commissioner and The Deputy Commissioner of Excise

A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.—Petitioner, who had a CL-9 licence, which was renewed on 29.06.2012 up to 30.06.2013, having submitted an application for renewal on 28.05.2013, finding that the renewal has not been effected even after due date, has filed this writ petition to direct the respondents to renew the CL-9 licence for the excise year 2013-14. Sri T.K. Vedamurthy, learned HCGP submitted that there are objections from the public with regard to the carrying of business by the petitioner in the place wherein he carried on the business and that the petitioner was notified on 28.06.2013, to shift his business to a non-objectionable place and the petitioner having not come forward with the proposal to shift the place of business, the Authority has not taken decision with regard to the claim of the petitioner for renewal of licence. Learned counsel submitted that, since the petitioner can prefer an appeal before the Commissioner of Excise in Karnataka, under S. 61(2) of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (for short, the Act), the writ petition is not maintainable.

Sri Mohan Bhat, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the licence was valid up to 30.06.2013 and a notice was issued on 28.06.2013 vide Annexure-B to shift the business within a period of 90 days to a non-objectionable place and before the expiry of the period indicated in the said notice, it is not open to the respondents, not to renew the licence. Learned counsel did not dispute the fact that against the alleged inaction of the respondents, an appeal could be preferred under S. 61(2) of the Act, before the Commissioner for Excise in Karnataka. However, learned counsel submitted that apprehending that the Appellate Authority may not pass an interim order and/or the appeal may not be decided early, the writ petition was filed. Since the petitioner can avail the statutory remedy of appeal under S. 61(2) of the Act against the alleged inaction of the respondents in the matter of renewal of CL-9 excise licence, the writ petition is not maintainable.

In the circumstances, writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the Commissioner for Excise in Karnataka. If, an appeal is preferred, accompanied by an application for grant of interim relief, the application be taken up for consideration and order passed within two days of the appeal being filed and the appeal itself be decided expeditiously.

The contentions raised in this writ petition are left open for consideration in the appeal which may be filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority.

No costs.

Sri T.K. Vedamurthy is permitted to file memo of appearance in four weeks.